[Official] Armata Discussion thread #4

T-47 wrote:Guys this just my thoughts I'm sharing. It is related to the armaments of current Armata, Kurganet and Bumerang vehicles.

So far the armament is:

T-14: 1x125mm gun with 125mm ATGM capability with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.

My thoughts so far regarding the armaments:

""""""

Actually, the roof mounted remote control machine gun on the T-14 is also a 7.62mm, rather than the traditional 12.7mm anti-air gun used in previous generations. This is often misquoted on many website, but u can tell its a PKTM by looking at the size and barrel.  

Regarding your suggestions for armaments, i will just generally say this : Adding more weapon systems to the vehicle adds weight, adds training cost/duration, adds more components and complexity.
It also increase the cost per unit. If such a vehicle is K-Killed, you lose a lot of expensive systems and munitions, which would otherwise be spread out among specialist vehicles.

I do feel that there is room for improvement tho. I think over the course of the next few years however we will see some impressive weapon modules become available.
We will already see new intermediate module at Army 2017 next month.

Regarding the ability to "point a weapon in any direction" trough the use of panoramic remote weapon station. Al tough i am personally a fan of such systems, a lot can be solved with good formation movement and tactics, which are cheaper solution .

What do you know about the T-14 Armata?

Yuri wrote:What do you know about the T-14 Armata?

There is already dedicated thread for armata family vehicles.

Introduce yourslef pls here
https://www.russiadefence.net/f6-member-introductions-and-rules

George1 wrote:

Yuri wrote:What do you know about the T-14 Armata?

There is already dedicated thread for armata family vehicles.

Introduce yourslef pls here
https://www.russiadefence.net/f6-member-introductions-and-rules

Where do I write this?

My thoughts so far regarding the armaments:

T-14: 1x125mm gun with 125mm ATGM capability with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial. And 1x30mm and 1x12.7mm combination at top.

There are only three crew so the commander will be looking around, the gunner will be shooting and the driver will be driving.

Instead of a 30mm cannon which is large and heavy with large heavy rounds I would suggest a coaxial 23mm single or twin barrel cannon for use against targets that don't warrant a 125mm shell but 30 cal MG rounds are not effective against.
A bit like the 100mm and 30mm combination on the BMP-3.

they would compliment each other.

T-15: 4x30mm (or at least 2x) gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch + 2x infra-red AAM ready to launch at the back of turret. With 1x12.7mm gun on another small turret like on T-14 current armament. Search and track will be done by modified OLS-30 mounted on top of the mini turret.

A four barrel arrangement would not be very efficient and would be rather heavy. It would be more efficient to simply fit a single twin barrel gun as used on the Hind and Su-25 if you want a good rate of fire.

Mounted on a ground vehicle an anti aircraft missile would be a SAM not an AAM.

A turret with a twin 30mm cannon and a four pack of Verba MANPADS could be very simply made, but most Russian units have air defence vehicles operating with them so it is a bit redundant to also carry SAMs on IFVs.

The most important feature of an IFV is the ability to defeat enemy vehicles of the same class... 30mm does not cut it any more... a 57mm gun is needed.

Kurganet-25 IFV: 1x57mm gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.

The T-15 would have the same armament as this for all the same reasons.

Kurganet-25 APC: 1x30mm gun with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.

A standard APC setup too.

Bumerang IFV: 1x57mm gun with 4x152mm ATGM ready to launch with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.

A standard IFV setup.

Bumerang APC: 1x30mm gun with 1x7.62mm gun co-axial and 1x12.7mm gun on top mini turret.

Ditto... standard APC setup.

The point of top mini turret on everything is that it can fire another direction than the main gun. Suppose the APC is engaged with its 30mm gun in one direction occupying the 7.62mm gun with it. But 12.7mm is still free to rotate and can fend of any stray ATGM or RPG carrier or troops in another direction.

The crews of these vehicles will be three... a gunner, a commander, and a driver.

The drivers job is to drive. The gunners job is to shoot the targets given to him by his commander.

The commanders job is to look 360 degrees for threats and targets... threats he finds and tells the driver to move to a position of cover safe from threats, targets he tasks the gunner with engaging.

In such a setup a roof mounted independent turret with a light weapon can be coaxial to the commanders sight so that if he spots a soft target that is an immediate threat... a suicide bomber, or IED vehicle or RPG gunner he can immediately engage with the weapon pointing where his sight is pointing... otherwise he can select the target and push a button so the main turret gun points at that target and get the gunner to engage and destroy.

As such I would say a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher and a PK rifle calibre machine gun would be sufficient weapon for the commanders sight mount.

For the rest of the vehicles I would suggest:

MBT: 125mm smoothbore gun until the 152mm is needed, and a 57mm long barrel grenade launcher as a coaxial weapon, plus a rifle calibre MG all coaxial with the main gun controlled by the gunner with backup use by commander.

Roof mounted PK and Balkan grenade launcher for commander, but able to be used by any crew in emergency.

IFV: 57mm long barrel high velocity gun plus PK rifle calibre coaxial MG and 4 tube 152mm ATGMs.

Roof mounted PK and Balkan grenade launcher for commander, but able to be used by any crew in emergency.

Note being an IFV a trooper in the rear will either have a Verba MANPAD or Metis-M1 ATGM too.

APC: 30mm cannon plus 4 tube ATGMs and rifle calibre PK MG.

Roof mounted PK and Balkan grenade launcher for commander, but able to be used by any crew in emergency.

The only vehicle I would give multiple turrets to is the BMPT which is intended to operate in built up areas and could be attacked from any angle.

Such a vehicle I would give a large main central turret with a 120mm smoothbore gun/mortar that can fire 120mm mortar shells and 122mm and 120mm guided gun launched missiles and 120mm shells. I would also fit a coaxial 57mm long barrel grenade launcher and a coaxial twin barrel 23mm cannon all for use by the gunner at different target types.

In the front and rear centre of the hull below the level of the turret so it wont interfere with its operation I would put one external turret with a PK MG and a Balkan 40mm grenade launcher with one crewmen in the rear of the vehicle controlling the turret at the rear and the vehicle driver at the front controlling the front mini turret.
The driver would drive and control the front mini turret... the optics of which could be used with virtual reality goggles for the driver so he can look and shoot... and the commander would have his own roof mounted lite turret with grenade launcher and MG slaved to his optics so he could shoot what he sees. The gunner would control the main turret with the main armament and would engage targets as directed by the commander. and the rear gunner would watch the rear with virtual reality goggles and the rear mini turret.

0nillie0 wrote:

Actually, the roof mounted remote control machine gun on the T-14 is also a 7.62mm, rather than the traditional 12.7mm anti-air gun used in previous generations. This is often misquoted on many website, but u can tell its a PKTM by looking at the size and barrel.  

My bad.

Regarding your suggestions for armaments, i will just generally say this : Adding more weapon systems to the vehicle adds weight, adds training cost/duration, adds more components and complexity.
It also increase the cost per unit. If such a vehicle is K-Killed, you lose a lot of expensive systems and munitions, which would otherwise be spread out among specialist vehicles.

None of my suggestions are new, costly or complex except T-15. All of them are already exist and in service with various platforms except 57mm is on testing phase. And in my suggestions the vehicles are still specialist. These are just improvement of their specialty. See below for more explanation.

We will already see new intermediate module at Army 2017 next month.

Any idea whats coming?

Regarding the ability to "point a weapon in any direction" trough the use of panoramic remote weapon station. Al tough i am personally a fan of such systems, a lot can be solved with good formation movement and tactics, which are cheaper solution .

In special operation or in low intensity conflicts there are often not enough vehicles available for good and effective formations in various scenarios, specially in dense urban area. Where the vehicles are kind of on their own. Thats why firing on multiple direction at once seemed important to me.

GarryB wrote:

There are only three crew so the commander will be looking around, the gunner will be shooting and the driver will be driving.

Instead of a 30mm cannon which is large and heavy with large heavy rounds I would suggest a coaxial 23mm single or twin barrel cannon for use against targets that don't warrant a 125mm shell but 30 cal MG rounds are not effective against.
A bit like the 100mm and 30mm combination on the BMP-3.

they would compliment each other.

I'm sticking with 30mm because 23mm is getting out of phase as it seems. Also 23mm is not that light than 30mm. The aircraft 30mm can be used which is considerably light!
But I like the idea of BMP-3. But still I kept the 30mm independent from main gun because nowadays suicide bombers are adding armor on their car. I'm not sure 12.7mm can pen them or not but obviously 7.62mm or 5.45mm can't. So I suggested 30mm.

A four barrel arrangement would not be very efficient and would be rather heavy. It would be more efficient to simply fit a single twin barrel gun as used on the Hind and Su-25 if you want a good rate of fire.

I agree, thats why I also thought about twin barrel.

Mounted on a ground vehicle an anti aircraft missile would be a SAM not an AAM.

Again my bad. I forgot the term SAM

A turret with a twin 30mm cannon and a four pack of Verba MANPADS could be very simply made, but most Russian units have air defence vehicles operating with them so it is a bit redundant to also carry SAMs on IFVs.

The most important feature of an IFV is the ability to defeat enemy vehicles of the same class... 30mm does not cut it any more... a 57mm gun is needed.

I'm assuming the main role of T-15 will be a BMPT rather than typical IFV. So for supporting tanks it needs support package. 57mm are overkill against enemy infantry. Also in low intensity conflict AD units are not always assigned but this is the era of drones! A lightly armored drone can inflict heavy damage to the infantries. So I think at least 2 light SAMs are needed for these type of conflicts. I'd keep the 4 ATGMs because of the very reason 30mm doesn't cut anymore. Also ATGMs are effective against heavily fortified targets. And for 57mm in T-15 I wrote in another thread that I hope they'll make the 57mm turret modular enough to replace it prior to the mission. Yes its complex but not costly! Again except 57mm all the others already exists and in service in various platforms. Loosing an Armata will cause more harm for their defense tech rather than offensive techs I'm suggesting

And I kept the 57mm dedicated for Kuragent IFV because I assumed this will be the actual IFV in future rather than T-15.

The suggestions of GarryB is also worth it but it'll cost more than mine for BMPT. Also contrary to him I ignored grenade launchers from main setup because it can be added at the side of the turret at any time needed like current tanks do.

Looking for more comments

I'm sticking with 30mm because 23mm is getting out of phase as it seems. Also 23mm is not that light than 30mm.

There is an enormous difference in size and weight of 23 x 115mm ammo, and 30 x 165mm ammo:



The shell case of the 30mm round is huge to generate high muzzle velocity for kinetic armour penetration performance.

The 23mm shell is a low velocity low recoil round relying on projectile weight of HE for effect.

But I like the idea of BMP-3. But still I kept the 30mm independent from main gun because nowadays suicide bombers are adding armor on their car. I'm not sure 12.7mm can pen them or not but obviously 7.62mm or 5.45mm can't. So I suggested 30mm.

With a coaxial 23mm cannon a new Russian tank can either engage a target with 23mm rounds or 125mm rounds... if the smaller rounds don't work the latter will.

rather more 23mm shells could be carried than 30mm shells.

23mm shells will be lighter and cheaper than 30mm and where they are not powerful enough 57mm rounds will work.

I'm assuming the main role of T-15 will be a BMPT rather than typical IFV.

Why would you assume that?

So for supporting tanks it needs support package. 57mm are overkill against enemy infantry.

I disagree... 57mm HE rounds would be rather more effective than 30mm HE rounds which are a bit under powered today. The 57mm round will also deal with any light armoured vehicle on the battlefield at any range it could be detected from.

40mm grenades are the best anti personnel calibre.

Also in low intensity conflict AD units are not always assigned but this is the era of drones! A lightly armored drone can inflict heavy damage to the infantries. So I think at least 2 light SAMs are needed for these type of conflicts.

A 57mm guided shell would be vastly superior at hitting point targets out to extended ranges... snipers positions, MG nests, or UCAVs.

And I kept the 57mm dedicated for Kuragent IFV because I assumed this will be the actual IFV in future rather than T-15.

Armata divisions will only have Armata based vehicles... the T-15 is the IFV within the Armata division.

The 57mm gun will be the primary armament of the IFV and also likely the new air defence gun vehicles in all future Russian divisions... Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon.

The suggestions of GarryB is also worth it but it'll cost more than mine for BMPT. Also contrary to him I ignored grenade launchers from main setup because it can be added at the side of the turret at any time needed like current tanks do.

the size and weight of the ammo means grenade launchers need to be an integral part of the design... not just bolted on later.

The new 40mm and 57mm grenade launchers look very impressive in performance and would be valuable additions to the new armoured vehicles russia is introducing.... including the unmanned platforms.

GarryB wrote:
There is an enormous difference in size and weight of 23 x 115mm ammo, and 30 x 165mm ammo:



The shell case of the 30mm round is huge to generate high muzzle velocity for kinetic armour penetration performance.

The 23mm shell is a low velocity low recoil round relying on projectile weight of HE for effect.

But is there any plan to go back to 23mm from 30mm?

With a coaxial 23mm cannon a new Russian tank can either engage a target with 23mm rounds or 125mm rounds... if the smaller rounds don't work the latter will.

Again isn't it better to keep the lighter cannon independent than co-axial? It can be also used as a CIWS as the defenses of Armata will detect the incoming enemy projectile. Specially ATGMs from long distance.

Why would you assume that?

I assumed that only in the case of my suggested armaments. Thats why I also stated that 57mm turret should be modular. Which can be installed prior to the mission.

40mm grenades are the best anti personnel calibre.

How about something behind some cover? Lets say rooftop of a building behind the bricks? Can grenades pen?

57mm HE rounds would be rather more effective than 30mm HE rounds

(For the sake of argument) Of course they are but like the same way 203mm HE rounds would be more effective than anything less caliber HE? Also I think AP round is needed. HE can't do the job everywhere.

The 57mm round will also deal with any light armoured vehicle on the battlefield at any range it could be detected from.

For tank support mission tanks will take care or ATGMs. For IFV mission I agree.

40mm grenades are the best anti personnel calibre.

Depends on the scenario!

A 57mm guided shell would be vastly superior at hitting point targets out to extended ranges... snipers positions, MG nests, or UCAVs.

I agree, but as in my scenario I put 30mm in the tank support package so that needed SAM. Anyways no argument here.

Armata divisions will only have Armata based vehicles... the T-15 is the IFV within the Armata division.

Is that final decision?

The 57mm gun will be the primary armament of the IFV and also likely the new air defence gun vehicles in all future Russian divisions... Armata, Kurganets, Boomerang, and Typhoon.

Same question again, is that final decision? 30mm against air targets still deadly. Also RoF do matter.

the size and weight of the ammo means grenade launchers need to be an integral part of the design... not just bolted on later.

I think they should make it modular!

The new 40mm and 57mm grenade launchers look very impressive in performance and would be valuable additions to the new armoured vehicles russia is introducing.... including the unmanned platforms.

Agreed.

Army-2017: Armata family of vehicles to be fitted with new mobile power stations

Russia’s Armata-family combat vehicles will receive mobile power stations. These devices will be installed between the tank's storage batteries and engine. They will ensure an instant and smooth start of the engines at 50 degrees below zero, as well as the operation of turret traversing mechanisms, armament stabilization and combat control systems. This opportunity will be provided by supercapacitors - devices capable of instantly accumulating a large amount of electricity even from an empty battery and supplying the on-board systems for some time until the main engine is started, the newspaper Izvestia writes.


The scheme of the device is similar to the starters of the "start-stop" system, a technology designed to automatically turn off and restart the engine of the car to save fuel. The supercapacitor is able to compensate for energy loss when the engine is switched on and off repeatedly and increases the battery life. For the latter, this figure is several thousand charge-discharge cycles. The supercapacitor provides a million times more cycles.

Supercapacitors have been designed and manufactured by the Renova Group. Currently, these devices are supplied for city electric buses and starting loco diesels. As Mikhail Lifshits, director for high-tech assets development at Renova, told Izvestia, the products are currently offered to the military. The supercapacitor is studied as standard equipment for modernized Russian tanks, as well as Armata-family armored vehicles.

"We carried out full-scale tests of a supercapacitor for the cold start of a tank diesel engine," said Mikhail Lifshits. "The vehicle stood in the frost for a few days and its batteries were completely empty. Nevertheless, with the help of a supercapacitor-based mobile power station (its size did not exceed a conventional attache case), we were able to start a cold engine several times in a row. The use of such a device allows you to free the battery compartment of the tank almost by half for any other payload."


Expert Sergey Suvorov told Izvestia that the problem of the internal volume of armored vehicles is among most urgent for designers. Each liter of the interior space means an additional 100 kg of the structural weight. Freeing the internal volume not only reduces the weight of the tank, but also helps you to increase the amount of fuel and ammunition in the vehicle.

"Currently, the tank designers are fighting for fire safety," said Suvorov. "This leads to abandoning hydraulic armament stabilization and turret traverse systems. They are unreliable and, in case of the slightest damage, lead to the destruction of the turret. In addition, the turrets became very heavy. To rapidly traverse them 90-180 degrees, additional power plants, 10-kW diesel generators, are mounted. In the US tanks, this system is located in the outer box behind the turret. In Iraq, there were many situations when it was destroyed by machine gun fire. Oil leaked out and went right into the engine compartment. As a result, the tank became immobilized. The Americans classify these losses as those due to "secondary features." But the fact remains that... the tank was knocked out by a machine gun."

Using a supercapacitor makes it possible to replace hydraulics with a magnetic turret traverse system. Moreover, this not only provides a quick turn of the gun in the proper direction, but also activates the tank combat control system before the main engine is started, that is, gives the opprtunity to immediately use weapons.

Currently, the Armata-family tanks and the T-15 heavy IFVs, their derivatives, are considered the most advanced combat vehicles. According to Western experts, they have more advanced indicators of survivability than their closest counterparts in Western Europe and the United States, the Izvestia newspaper recalls.

https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2017_show_daily_news_coverage_report/army-2017_armata_family_of_vehicles_to_be_fitted_with_new_mobile_power_stations_22308172.html

---

Nice paint job BTW, I like it

But is there any plan to go back to 23mm from 30mm?

What do you mean by back?

The 23 x 115mm calibre has been the gun calibre of Russian aircraft for some time and is still used on the latest versions of the Hind with the 23mm cannon in the chin turret position.

It is a low power low recoil high rate of fire weapon used where armour penetration is not an issue and HE fragment power is needed rather than anti armour performance.

For a Hind a 57mm or 80mm rocket or ATAKA or Shturm missile would be used against armour... the 23mm cannon is ideal against a wide variety of soft targets.

The high velocity 23 x 152mm round used in the ZSU-23-4 Shilka and ZU-23 twin barrel towed cannon is a different round of much higher velocity but the same projectile.

Again isn't it better to keep the lighter cannon independent than co-axial? It can be also used as a CIWS as the defenses of Armata will detect the incoming enemy projectile. Specially ATGMs from long distance.

No. having its own elevation so it can elevate over a much wider range of angles than the main gun would be good but being able to aim it where the main gun is aiming would be an advantage... you would either use the cannon or the main gun but not both, but both would be used by the gunner

A cannon would not be practical as a CIWS for a tank the APS already use its own interceptor which is much faster and much more efficient.

ATGMs and APFSDS rounds are much smaller and much faster than anti ship missiles and over much shorter ranges with much less warning... a turret would not have time to turn and fire enough rounds and would not carry enough ammo to be effective.

Note in the anti aircraft role the 30mm calibre has become obsolete because you cant fire enough shells at a very small target like a UAV to be effective without airburst shells.

The 57mm calibre rounds are effective because of guided shells and proximity fuses.

I assumed that only in the case of my suggested armaments. Thats why I also stated that 57mm turret should be modular. Which can be installed prior to the mission.

These systems are modular not so they can be fitted just before combat missions like Thunderbird 2. They are modular to save money in design and training and so repairs and battle damage replacements are easier and cheaper.

A tank man from an Armata brigade will be at home in a tank in any other brigade, though in a Typhoon he might have a 57mm gun instead of a 125mm gun or 152mm gun. The sensors and systems and training will be the same.

How about something behind some cover? Lets say rooftop of a building behind the bricks? Can grenades pen?

For targets behind heavy cover you launch your UAV for an aerial view. If there is no top cover lob some 40mm over the wall and hit them from above. If there is heavy top cover fire delay fused 125mm HE shells through the bricks...

Or call in an artillery strike.

(For the sake of argument) Of course they are but like the same way 203mm HE rounds would be more effective than anything less caliber HE? Also I think AP round is needed. HE can't do the job everywhere.

The armour piercing rounds of the 30mm calibre are too weak to perform their original role of penetration of enemy IFVs.

The 57mm high velocity gun will have APFSDS rounds able to penetrate the sides of tanks.

For armour, most of the time the ATGMs will be more use, for everything else a potent HE shell is most effective against soft targets and lightly armoured targets.

The 57mm grenade launcher they have in development is reportedly capable of firing a HE round with the same power of a 76.2mm artillery shell... it sounds rather potent.

For tank support mission tanks will take care or ATGMs. For IFV mission I agree.

Your tanks should be dealing with enemy tanks while your IFVs should be dealing with everything else and then enemy tanks.

A 57mm gun and ATGMs means they can... they wont have enough ATGMs to deal with every enemy IFV and 30mm wont deal with most current NATO IFVs even now.

Depends on the scenario!

AGLs are vastly more effective man killers than rifle calibre machine guns. And have better range too. The new Baikal 40mm grenade launcher can hit targets out to 2.5km... the PKM and PKP are limited to less than 1,500m most of the time.

The HE nature of grenades means direct hits are not needed to injure or kill.

Is that final decision?

The whole purpose of an Armata family of vehicles is to shorten the logistics tail for that force. If you add different vehicles like Kurganets for IFV then you introduce different engines and wheels etc etc for which you need spare parts... you also introduce vehicles with much weaker protection and different mobility characteristics.

The whole purpose of the Armata family is to have tank level mobility and tank level protection so that what happened in urban areas in Chechnia can't happen again where the the columns of vehicles were trapped and IFVs were all picked off and then tanks were taken out without troop support from angles they could not angle their main guns to defend themselves with from with.

Same question again, is that final decision? 30mm against air targets still deadly. Also RoF do matter.

30mm is too weak against current 32 ton NATO IFVs, and against very small targets like enemy UAVs the 30mm does not generate a dense enough pattern of impacts to ensure a hit... a small target will just fly between the shells. A guided 57mm shell with a proximity fuse would be much more effective yet still cheaper than using up missiles against a swarm attack and the 57mm APFSDS would be effective against quite heavy armour at combat ranges.

I think they should make it modular!

In the sense that they are remote weapon stations they would be but integral to the designs to ensure internal ammo storage as the ammo will be big and bulky.

Using a supercapacitor makes it possible to replace hydraulics with a magnetic turret traverse system. Moreover, this not only provides a quick turn of the gun in the proper direction, but also activates the tank combat control system before the main engine is started, that is, gives the opprtunity to immediately use weapons.

That looks awesome.

Very clever design.

Previously as I understand it they used a compressed air starter for the diesel engines, but this is much much better.

GarryB wrote:
What do you mean by back?

The 23 x 115mm calibre has been the gun calibre of Russian aircraft for some time and is still used on the latest versions of the Hind with the 23mm cannon in the chin turret position.

Yes but as 23mm is mostly replaced by 30mm in almost all cases. Thats why I thought about 30mm. Low velocity version of 30mm shell can be produced.

The adoption of the 30 x 165mm cannon on the hind was deemed a failure as it was too powerful... the recoil made it very inaccurate as it shook the whole aircraft off target when it fired.

The current Hind uses a twin barrel 23mm cannon that is much much better in every respect.

Compact, light, low recoil, high rate of fire, hard hitting rounds, powerful HE rounds.

Russian Defense Ministry to get 100 Armata tanks

More:
http://tass.com/defense/961838

KUBINKA, August 24. /TASS/. The Russian Defense Ministry will receive 100 Armata main battle tanks, Deputy Defense Minister Yury Borisov said at the Army-2017 international military technical forum on Thursday.

"The designed models are currently undergoing operation testing. We have a contract for 100 units that will be supplied before 2020," he said.

In 2015, former Uralvagonzavod’s CEO Oleg Sienko reported that the Russian Defense Ministry would receive 2,300 Armata tanks before 2020.

Armata's design

Defense contractors are finalizing the Kurganets-25 medium tracked platform and the Armata heavy tracked combat platform, considering the remarks voiced by Russia’s Defense Ministry while further work is proceeding on schedule, Industry and Trade Minister Denis Manturov told TASS.

"We are working jointly with the Defense Ministry of Russia under the Armata and Kurganets-25 projects. The customer voiced some remarks. As of now, a detailed analysis has been held jointly with enterprises and chief designers and the completion of works has been planned," Manturov said.

The absolute novelty of most designed parts and assemblies, which should be unified under some works for different prototypes, is a major reason for the delay in the timetable, he said.

"Apart from this, the items were initially designed with imported assemblies, which has required in the current conditions to carry out additional measures for import substitution. The enterprises have done enormous work and now we are complying with the schedule," the industry and trade minister said.

About the bolded part: No, he didn't say that (if I'm not mistaken). Russia-haters are going to love that part, though. They were talking about 2,300 modern tanks before 2020, that includes older, upgraded tanks as well. I don't know maybe there plans for more... like for a few hundred more, but not 2,300.

Naturally the production is going to last decades, that kind of schedule wouldn't make any sense even if they could do it. (Not that many internet experts are going to understand that, while at the same time conveniently forgetting how Armata is the most advanced tank in the world, no other country has anything 1:1 comparable yet and that the Western European powers like France, Germany and UK actually have only 200-300 MBTs each.)

Ministry of Defense of Russia presents scale model of T-16 Armata recovery vehicle at Army-2017.

At Army-2017, the International Military Technical Forum, the Russian Ministry of Defense unveils on its booth, a scale model of the T-16 Armata, the recovery tank based on the T-14 Armata main battle tank (MBT).



According to our first analysis of the T-16 BREM, the vehicle seems to have a crew of three with three hatches located at the front of the hull. The standard turret of the T-14 is removed and replaced by small remotely operated weapon station armed with a Kord 12.7mm caliber heavy machine gun.

The T-16 BREM uses the same chassis and suspension as the T-14 and the T-15. A crane is mounted on the right side on the top of the hull which is protected at the front with a slat armour. As every recovery vehicle of Russian army, the T-16 BREM is fitted with hydraulically operated dozer/stabilizing blade mounted at the front of the hull.

The front of the chassis and front sides of the hull seems to be fitted with passive armour while the rear part is covered with slat armour.

There is two blocks of 12 launcher tubes mounted on the front of the turret, which are part of the Afghanit APS (Active Protection System) also available for the T-14 MBT and T-15 IFV.



https://www.armyrecognition.com/army-2017_show_daily_news_coverage_report/t-16_armata_brem_recovery_tank_scale_model_at_army-2017_12408171.html

---

Kimppis wrote:About the bolded part: No, he didn't say that (if I'm not mistaken). Russia-haters are going to love that part, though. They were talking about 2,300 modern tanks before 2020, that includes older, upgraded tanks as well. I don't know maybe there plans for more... like for a few hundred more, but not 2,300.

We saw a pilot batch of around 20-30 vehicles on Armata platform (T-14s and T-15s alike) on May 9 parades.

This 100 T-14 and T-15 will likely constitute a regiment/brigade for operational evaluation. This unit will likely take part in military exercises and drills to work out tactics on various unit levels (individual vehicle/platoon/company/battalion/regiment/brigade), and to test out interoperability between various vehicles of the platform.

I am assuming that is a massive guess since the amount of T-80's and T-72's in reserve.

Although, for the cost, there has been a very low upgrade rate of tanks for Russian military. I am assuming it has more to do with waiting for Armata or they are not sure what they want.

franco wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:I am assuming that is a massive guess since the amount of T-80's and T-72's in reserve.

Although, for the cost, there has been a very low upgrade rate of tanks for Russian military.  I am assuming it has more to do with waiting for Armata or they are not sure what they want.

The Defense people have always talked about 2300 modern or modernized MBT's by end of 2020. Some assumed all T-14's, I thought 500-800 T-14 and then the others. But now they are saying only 100 T-14's to be delivered by the end of 2020. I knew the Military considered the 350 T-90A and 250  T-80U's to be modern tanks. I also know that at the end of 2016 there was around 1000 T-72B3's completed and orders for another 300 plus there is an order for 300 T-80BV's to be upgraded. Not quite a massive guess but still a guess to a degree. There will be about 3,000 MBT's in active service by the end of 2020. On the other hand, the 2300 figure may represent all new Armata's plus new modernized MBT's and not include the T-90A and T-80U which were in operation prior to the start of this Arms Procurement plan (2011-2020).

I dunno. There was over $400M deal from Russian MoD on upgraded T-72B tanks, T-80's and T-90M's. So that just adds to the excitement.

miketheterrible wrote:

franco wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:I am assuming that is a massive guess since the amount of T-80's and T-72's in reserve.

Although, for the cost, there has been a very low upgrade rate of tanks for Russian military.  I am assuming it has more to do with waiting for Armata or they are not sure what they want.

The Defense people have always talked about 2300 modern or modernized MBT's by end of 2020. Some assumed all T-14's, I thought 500-800 T-14 and then the others. But now they are saying only 100 T-14's to be delivered by the end of 2020. I knew the Military considered the 350 T-90A and 250  T-80U's to be modern tanks. I also know that at the end of 2016 there was around 1000 T-72B3's completed and orders for another 300 plus there is an order for 300 T-80BV's to be upgraded. Not quite a massive guess but still a guess to a degree. There will be about 3,000 MBT's in active service by the end of 2020. On the other hand, the 2300 figure may represent all new Armata's plus new modernized MBT's and not include the T-90A and T-80U which were in operation prior to the start of this Arms Procurement plan (2011-2020).

I dunno.  There was over $400M deal from Russian MoD on upgraded T-72B tanks, T-80's and T-90M's.  So that just adds to the excitement.

T-80s???..... i haven't heard of any upgrades to the T-80s??

franco wrote:300 T-80BV's are being upgraded specifically for cold weather units so will go to the most northern ones.

http://www.armyrecognition.com/weapons_defence_industry_military_technology_uk/russia_ministry_of_defense_plans_to_upgrade_t-80bv_mbt_main_battle_tank_tass_11511161.html

because turbines are better suited for cold temps and additionally no sand it there to suck in ?

37:25 she will be getting female voice as well

Hopefully some female crews too

Jane's by IHS Markit‏ @IHS4DefRiskSec 1h1 hour ago

Russian plans to upgrade T-80 and T-90 jeopardise Armata programme:

The Russian Ministry of Defence’s (MoD’s) 7 September announcement that it was revising plans to permanently remove 10,000 armoured vehicles from its inventory and upgrade T-80 and T-90 series main battle tanks (MBTs) could jeopardise the future of the Armata programme. The announcement together with the reduction in potential orders for the T-14 MBT and the continued decline in Russian defence spending have led some sources to claim that the Armata programme has been cancelled.

Under previous plans, 10,000 reserve vehicles, made available after downsizing the Russian armed forces, were to be melted down by 2020. The revised plan stated that only 4,000 vehicles would be broken down, with the remaining 6,000 kept as a strategic reserve. Russia also plans to upgrade the T-80 to the T-80BVM standard and the T-90 to the T-90M standard as part of a USD417 million contract signed earlier this year. The T-80BVM includes a significant armour upgrade, and the T-90M appears to incorporate many of the improvements from the T-14, such as the commander’s sight with an integrated remotely operated weapon station.

Initial development of the Armata started out with high hopes, but estimates of the number of vehicles to be procured have plummeted downwards since the T-14 and T-15 were unveiled. In 2015, UralVagonZavod (UVZ) CEO Oleg Sienko announced that 2,300 vehicles would be produced by 2020. In 2016, Deputy Defence Minister Yuri Borisov announced the far more sober figure of 100 before 2020, and later in the year, this figure fell to just 70 vehicles, due by the end of 2019. Borisov’s latest announcement, in August 2017, restates his figure of 100 vehicles by 2020, although this presumably includes the approximately 20 vehicles currently undergoing trials in the Russian armed forces.

http://www.janes.com/article/74263/russian-plans-to-upgrade-t-80-and-t-90-jeopardise-armata-programme?utm_content=buffer4d9ad&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

In case this is true then Russia motivated hostile states to develop their own next-gen tanks while at the same time they canceled their own next-gen tank.

Talk about bending over and giving other guy erection simultaneously....